(Original post by alexlemon2)
I would assume it would be one of their grades bumped up by 2, surely it cannot be as rediculous to assume a CCC grade student would be bumped up to AAA

Rediculous proposal.

That's not what it is saying. Essentially if a poor student sits the exam and starts on the second grade, i.e. a D, but only perfoms as well as to achieve a C in the exams then that is what they get: a C. There is not any whiff of artificially 'bumping' up the exams at the end so that C grade pupils get As.

(Original post by ArtGoblin)
It's the opposite of assuming working-class people are 'thick'. The scheme recognises that in the current system, grades aren't awarded based on someone's natural ability, but from their background. I'm interested in the 'sociological crap' you could bring in to support your argument, as most sociological studies in this area show that working-class children are disadvantaged by the education system, and would actually support these measures.

Nah, actually I meant sociological crap against it, but tbh quite a lot of it is outdated and theres no excuse not to be able to get a decent grade at A-level. Yeah theres certain situations where you might flunk your exams but to give a 2 grade headstart on poorer students is ridiculous!

And how would grades by based on background?
Some talent has to come into it and I know this is not a pure meritocracy system but some hard work does pay off and I'm sure most people, working class or otherwise, realise this.

Some people are just not AAA students they're just not cut out for academic achievement in that way.

Could that article be more vague?
Only part I did agree in principle was this:

Mr Ebdon said: "I think what all universities are in the business of looking for is potential among the students rather than achievement."

However he added that because students from better background achieved more did not mean that they had a higher potential.

Some students will probably do poorly at school because of a lack of guidance from parents and teachers, instead of a lack of talent/potential; it is these students that you want to get into university.

(Original post by PurpleMonkeyDishwasher)
This makes me furious - the students in the middle ground (upper-working class or lower-middle class) are never accounted for, the government seem only concerned with maximising the potential of the poorest students and giving university places to those who are undeserved of them. If they want to see more diversity in the socio-economic class of top university students then bring back selective grammar schools; the smarter poor students can reap the benefits of being schooled without distractions from those who don't even want to learn. Giving them a two-grade boost isn't going to solve any problems whatsoever, that's giving all poorer students an unfair advantage and once again disadvantaging those students who aren't poor but can't afford to be schooled anywhere other than a dire state institution.

As an academic left-wing student from a working class background, I also think this is complete cack. People do have different chances in life, but to be able to adequately "adjust" someone's grades on this basis you would have to look at an in depth biography, assess every teacher they ever had, see how supportive their parents were and much more. Should Oxford take a less able student because our education system has failed and underprepared him or her? Bring back grammar schools and actually socially mobilise a child for once.

(Original post by ArtGoblin)
It's the opposite of assuming working-class people are 'thick'. The scheme recognises that in the current system, grades aren't awarded based on someone's natural ability, but from their background. I'm interested in the 'sociological crap' you could bring in to support your argument, as most sociological studies in this area show that working-class children are disadvantaged by the education system, and would actually support these measures.

(Original post by ArtGoblin)
It's the opposite of assuming working-class people are 'thick'. The scheme recognises that in the current system, grades aren't awarded based on someone's natural ability, but from their background. I'm interested in the 'sociological crap' you could bring in to support your argument, as most sociological studies in this area show that working-class children are disadvantaged by the education system, and would actually support these measures.

What about students like me who went to a school in a poor area but their parents worked and got screwed out of any helping hand the government might offer?

(Original post by JW92)
As an academic left-wing student from a working class background, I also think this is complete cack. People do have different chances in life, but to be able to adequately "adjust" someone's grades on this basis you would have to look at an in depth biography, assess every teacher they ever had, see how supportive their parents were and much more.

It's about redistribution of chance and about creating an artificial "floor" upon which everyone at the bottom can stand whilst climbing the "ladder" upwards, rather than there being the proverbial glass ceiling. I think a lot of this thread just exemplifies the right-wing attitudes of our generation and jumping on exaggerated headlines before seeing the substance of proposals. This is an article on the BBC - hardly a friend of Labour - which is about an idea, nothing more than that. We should perhaps wait until policy documents are produced to see what they intend to do with the idea, no?

(Original post by JW92)
Should Oxford take a less able student because our education system has failed and underprepared him or her? Bring back grammar schools and actually socially mobilise a child for once.

Sometimes they do, you know. That's why, despite the huge proportion of 1st and 2.1s from Oxford the occasional student gets a 2.2 or a 3rd.

They should just accept it's because the working-class is ridden with chavs. Most don't care about education, they care about leaving and getting a full time job at Primark and getting pregnant. Stick with funding free trips to theme parks and cinemas in hopes that the "ADD ridden underachievers" will suddenly become straight A students.

And before you start whinging, I am working class. Have fun computing that x

This is a load of BULL! There is no wya they can put this in place. As if EMA wasnt enough to annoy us in the first place. Its just a slap in the face for every other bugger who works their ass off to make something of themselves!

Anyone else feel all mp's are completely out of touch with the true needs and desires of society? Bunch of old men who think they know best with no real industrial experience in their particular sectors?

This new policy is just going to alienate the middle class. Where the government, may I add, gain the majority of their tax revenue from.

When labour first came in to power, one of their policies was to improve education. Yet all we have seen, is dumbing down of A levels coupled with steady grade inflation over the least decade, and more recently, the pressure on universities to potentially accept less able students. I don't blame oxford in the slightest for announcing their desire to become state independent. What a bunch of tits we have in parliament.

Why did they try to fix an education system which was never really broken????

Background should definitely play a part in the admissions procedure - just as it definitely plays a part in academic achievement (to a debatable extent, but still a part).

As someone in that article states it is potential for achievement that is just as important as actual achievements - A levels are far from the be-all end-all indicator of intelligence or ability to achieve at university.

The problem with the scheme (kind of) proposed is it will gain just the response seen here - people will see it as weakening their own personal achievements. It is unlikely any A level student who has worked hard for a grade will put that achievement down to any other factors than their own hard work. Of course however there are a myriad of other (smaller) considerations, and whilst individual hard work is a large factor in success it is by no means the only one.

(Original post by Adorno)
It's about redistribution of chance and about creating an artificial "floor" upon which everyone at the bottom can stand whilst climbing the "ladder" upwards, rather than there being the proverbial glass ceiling. I think a lot of this thread just exemplifies the right-wing attitudes of our generation and jumping on exaggerated headlines before seeing the substance of proposals. This is an article on the BBC - hardly a friend of Labour - which is about an idea, nothing more than that. We should perhaps wait until policy documents are produced to see what they intend to do with the idea, no?

Sometimes they do, you know. That's why, despite the huge proportion of 1st and 2.1s from Oxford the occasional student gets a 2.2 or a 3rd.

I can't see the idea going any further forward because I just think it's attacking the problem from the completely wrong angle. The problems happen long before the universities accept students and this is the crux of the matter. I'm speaking from the perspective of someone who went to an underperforming high school. As far as I'm aware of Oxford's admissions procedure, you must have AAA, do well in any entrance tests and perform well at interview - they give the places to the best candidates as opposed to giving anyone a leg up.